[Diy_efi] Re: [Efi332] Fw: wide-band O2 sensor comparison

[Mike]

Sounds reasonable to me :) and I'm hoping to get hold of a
sensor some time next month, anyone in Australia have one
for sale ?

rgds

Mike


At 09:29 AM 12/8/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>If the sensors are individually consistent in how they are "off", then it
>should be possible to use a commercial meter to do the calibration once.  It
>might not even be necessary to do that if you can use an engine with a
>properly working HEGO closed loop -- the flip-flopping across stoich ought
>to be visible on the DIY-WB, giving a reference point for interpreting the
>device's output.  Is this not the case?
>
>
>
>on 8/11/02 9:25 AM, Garfield Willis at garwillis at msn.com wrote:
>> Notice BTW that none of my stuff is making it out to DIY. "Too personal"
>> for you, Rivethead?
>> 
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 1995 07:59:55 -0400, "Bruce" <nacelp at bright.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> And for some of us, that's all we need.   Just in reading your posts, one
>>> can see the possible sources for errors, so it all does boil down to what
>>> someone does consider as close enough.   And that requires a judgement
call
>>> (on their part), of what, one considers good enough.
>>> Thank you, for your endorsement.
>>> Bruce
>> 
>> Let me remind you of something else I've also posted about previously,
>> which won't show up in your tests until you have the results logged in
>> real-time, and those are the whopping big transient errors we've seen in
>> testing your horseshoesOmeter. Have someone with decent equipment like
>> that friend of yours, but on some vehicle that can produce load and afr
>> swings a good bit faster than a big truck engine, cause a large rich
>> swing all the way from dfco to WOT, like you punched it after coasting,
>> and see where you land on the rich side *indicated* relative to some
>> decent equipment. The errors are a good deal *larger* than even the ones
>> you've just reported, because of your sloppy b-grade push-pull driver
>> arrangement on the Ip pump. You don't actually have a real servo there,
>> and you either under or overshoot the pump current given a good size
>> transient, which throws off the transient results even worse than the
>> static errors. If you HOLD the rich or lean transient (IOW, you make it
>> not a transient but hold the condition long enough), it will settle to
>> the level of static errors you're getting now, but that gives you an
>> even falser reading for the first few tenths of a second, and puts the
>> measurement of any *key* lean transients ALSO in question as to their
>> magnitude/severity.
>> 
>> Yeah, if all you're looking for is "do I have a blip", instead of "do I
>> have a blip, and how bad is it?", then once again, it's "good enough"
>> for you. Geezus. As I've said before, NOONE in the world of EE *or* real
>> proformance would consider any of this "acceptable".
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Diy_efi mailing list
>Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi
>
>

_______________________________________________
Diy_efi mailing list
Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi